Maybe AI just needs a bigger truck

Article:

"....our brains are thought to be effective because they are more computationally powerful than any computer we have today. We see similar claims in the computer science literature. The implication is that if only we could add more computing power, computers could do what people do. That reminds me of an old story:

John bought a truck so he could go into a farm-to-market business. He bought tomatoes from local farmers for two dollars a pound and drove them to market where he sold them for a dollar a pound. Needless to say, he began to lose money hand over fist.

He consulted his accountant who, after a detailed analysis, said, the “The answer is obvious. You need a bigger truck.”

A bigger computer would be like a bigger truck. All a truck can really do is haul things and all computers can really do is calculate. Limitations on computer performance are constrained by algorithmic information theory. According to the Church-Turing Thesis, anything done on the very fast computers of today could have been done—in principle—on Turing’s original 1930’s Turing machine. We can perform tasks faster today but the fundamental limitations of computing remain. Bigger and faster computers are not going to start creating new ideas. Those who believe that bigger computers will lead to superintelligence are asking for—a bigger truck."

I think this depends on what we mean by "smarter" just it depends on what we mean by "information processing".

No program has any mentality/consciousness whatsoever, but the tasks programs are meant to perform can be done via programs improving themselves. You can get improvements by using machine learning techniques for example.

Of course the very reliance on Big Data and task specific programs is an indication that general AI doesn't seem to be as en vogue as it once was.

No program has any mentality/consciousness whatsoever, 

I very much doubt that, I've seen enough AI's playing games that show behaviors that really look like anxiety and fear to me to think that probably there's more to them. However your arguments sound more like what you'd say a skeptic does, that because it's a "machine" it therefore cannot be conscious, even if the machine itself said it was conscious you sound like you would say that it's not on principle based n your other arguments on this topic.

The only real gaps between computational consciousness and human consciousness is the architecture. Modern CPU's physically function vastly differently than neurons so to argue that therefore AI is a failure because of that makes no sense. Build a CPU architecture that is physically similar to neurons, plug it into a humanoid android with all the right sensors, and you'll likely start to see very different results. There's been effort to grown and program neurons from rats, rabbits and etc for awhile now which last I heard have shown interesting results. As far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of time.

I very much doubt that, I've seen enough AI's playing games that show behaviors that really look like anxiety and fear to me to think that probably there's more to them. However your arguments sound more like what you'd say a skeptic does, that because it's a "machine" it therefore cannot be conscious, even if the machine itself said it was conscious you sound like you would say that it's not on principle based n your other arguments on this topic.

The only real gaps between computational consciousness and human consciousness is the architecture. Modern CPU's physically function vastly differently than neurons so to argue that therefore AI is a failure because of that makes no sense. Build a CPU architecture that is physically similar to neurons, plug it into a humanoid android with all the right sensors, and you'll likely start to see very different results. There's been effort to grown and program neurons from rats, rabbits and etc for awhile now which last I heard have shown interesting results. As far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of time.

I don't think there's anything more to seeming anxiety/fear than incorrect anthropomorphism? I've gone through AI books and nothing in my programming education made me think there was anything conscious to Turing Machines.

But I've actually said (IIRC on some Skeptiko threads) something synthetic with the right structural similarities to a human brain could instantiate human consciousness, at least given what we know about consciousness right now. So I agree with the latter part of your post, though I don't know if the neuronal level is the correct structural depth to consider. It's an empirical matter, so as you say it should be known in time.

I don't think there's anything more to seeming anxiety/fear than incorrect anthropomorphism? 

If that's just incorrect anthropomorphism then so is your or anyone else's belief in human consciousness.

If that's just incorrect anthropomorphism then so is your or anyone else's belief in human consciousness.

Could you elaborate?

But I've actually said (IIRC on some Skeptiko threads) something synthetic with the right structural similarities to a human brain could instantiate human consciousness, at least given what we know about consciousness right now. So I agree with the latter part of your post, though I don't know if the neuronal level is the correct structural depth to consider. It's an empirical matter, so as you say it should be known in time.

According to the dictionary, some synonyms for "instantiate" are embody, epitomize, express, externalize, incarnate, incorporate, manifest. So should I gather that you mean that a sufficiently complex and complete to the last synapse neural simulation of the human brain in the form of a very advanced computer system could act as an artificial means for separately existing human consciousness to manifest in the physical? It strikes me that this would be some form of interactive dualism, which has been my view for some time. 

I very much doubt that, I've seen enough AI's playing games that show behaviors that really look like anxiety and fear to me to think that probably there's more to them.

I don't know where the AI ball ultimately lands, but I find any questioning of the unconscious nature of current AI specious at best.  Current computer technology mimicking a human emotion is no more indicative of an inner experience than words in a story, or a painting, or any other currently available man-made representation.

What is it you are doubting?